once again, you blindly ignor the data.

"Some humans have the good sense to
realize that the natural monkey-primate
eye and natural human-primate eye
behavior EXACTLY THE SAME WAY."

monkey vision is PROVEN not to be the same as human vision. but you
don't care. if some monkey data supports your tired old disproven
beliefs then you will proclaim it so regardless of the proof.

pathetic.

"Dan Abel" <dabel[at]sonic.net> wrote in message news:dabel-555F8B.19515117122005[at]nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net...

- quote -

Well, Dan, in the subject post
jAUof.164456$qk4.81383[at]bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
I was idealizing a machine that just spit out your eyeglasses without asking any questions,
thus without getting patient responses enmeshed in the inevitable layers of subjective
uncertainty.

Perhaps I was engaging in inappropriate levity. One needs to trust the doctor's judgment,
even if he must depend on our snap judgements and ill-considered responses.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

--
Dicky

- quote -


Dear Dan,


That is the exact point. The OD doesn't tell you what you see. The
machine doesn't tell you what you see. The doctor asks which is
better,
one or two, and *you* tell the doctor.

Otis> It depends on how YOU look at it. A person, (a pilot shall we
say,
or a parent) can have the person read his own eye chart at home.
Thus if he reads 20/30, and the eye-doctor (using an
auto-refractor) says 20/120 -- the who do you believe.

Otis> Further, once a person reads his own eye chart (and has
a simplified trial-lens kit) he can personally determin his
refractive state -- if that becomes an issue. On a scientific
level, for a physicist -- there is no problem in doing this.
I think that is the right way (once all "medial" issues have been
cleared off the table.)

Otis> But the issue is clearly WHO is making the accurate
measuredment and WHO proposes to be in control
of a person's long-term visual status.

Best,

Otis

Dan Abel

In article <jAUof.164456$qk4.81383[at]bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> ,
"Dick Adams" <bad.addr[at]nonexist.com> wrote:

- quote -

That is the exact point. The OD doesn't tell you what you see. The
machine doesn't tell you what you see. The doctor asks which is better,
one or two, and *you* tell the doctor.

--
Dan Abel
dabel[at]sonic.net
Petaluma, California, USA

Dear Mike,

This obviously depends on the "measurement
conditions."

If they personally confirm their vision as
better-than 20/40, go pass the DMV, then
they never wind up in your office were
you measure their "dark field" accommodation
at -2.0 diopters.

What is that difficult to understand?

Vision that passes all legal standards -- is
good vision. If some one wishes
"semi-darkness" vision, then they
can go ahead an order some
-1.5 diopter lenses from zeniopical
for $20 -- if that is what they wish.

I don't think it is necessary, since
a minus lens can create stair-case
myopia in the natrual primate-eye.
There is indeed a secondary risk
to the minus lens -- which you deny
against the scientific data itself.

You "position" should be understood
before a preson begins wearing
an over-prescribed minus.

Just one man's opinion.

Best,

Otis

The reality is that people LOVE to be able to see. Plus is only
appropriate for hyperopes, presbyopes, and other disorders of
accommodation. Minus lenses neutralize positive defocus. Plus lenses
neutralize negative defocus.

DrG

Dear Dicky,

Subject: Some commentary.

Dicky> Most people are happy enough to take what they get, and
curiously
happier in many instances when they pay too much, and when
a good song-and-dance routine is a part of the package.

Otis> Most people LOVE that minus lens -- and want NO CONVERSATION
about true-prevention with a plus. I understand that issue ABSOLUTLY.
These ODs should point that out. It must be their main point.
It is impossible for them to "change" because they are doing
what the public "expects" and "demands". If there is to be
"change" -- the change must be in part in "us", that we learn
to "accept" the use of the plus at the threshold. But when you
learn to do that, look at your eye chart, and always "clear"
to better-than 20/40, you completely by-pass anything these
ODs have to "offer". Something to think about.

Dicky> You can't know what me and Otis see, or anybody else. Me and
Otis see differently, and reason differently. If you can't see that,
you
are not seeing clearly.

Otis> Totally correct. But the real "clue" is to study what
second-opinion ODs think about "protecting" their own children.
In that case "money" is not involved -- only a parents concern
about protecting his childs distant vision for life -- with the plus.
The OD can never "control" a person's visual habits -- but
a parent can learn to "control" his own child, by insisting
that the child always use a strong plus for all reading.
That is indeed a "lesson to be learned". If you
will study the primate data itself it strongly supports
true-prevention as Steve Leung is now doing it.
The real lesson is for the parent and child -- and
can not be "taught" with a person in 15 minutes
in an office. I separate SCIENTIFIC issues from
MEDICAL issues for that reason. That
should reduce some of the "huffing" and "puffing"
of some of these majority-opinion ODs.
Let us keep the discussion on a scientific level,
and avoid unnecessary "contention". The
results will be better if we keep this as
an academic evaluation of all natural eyes
as dynamic systems. (Enginering and Science,
and not medicine. The words we use are
very biased -- and loaded with false assumptions.)

Best,

Otis

Dear Neil,

Some humans have the sense to experimentaly
study the dynamic behavior of the NATURAL
primate eye -- as a dynamic system.

This proof is final -- if you test on an
"input" versus "output" basis.

Some humans have the good sense to
realize that the natural monkey-primate
eye and natural human-primate eye
behavior EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.

Drop the bogus terms "emmetropia", ametropia,
hyperopia, myopia, and these scientific
studies always come out the same way.

But that is of course the scientific second-opinion.

The majority opinion tells you to turn
your brain off and learn to "get used to"
that over-prescribed minus.

Your choice -- if you wish to function
on a scientific level -- or not.

Best,

Otis


- quote -



Could you please cite the study that shows that this is the case in
humans

Dick Adams wrote:


- quote -

The technology to do that has been here for years, but it's just not
something that would work out in the marketplace. For the same reason
that kiosks where you put your head in for a haircut, put your feet in
for a pair of shoes, or your butt in for an automatic wipe.

Only a small fringe of the population, dare I say the fringe lunatics,
would go for that kind of technology. If there were any money to be
made doing it, it would long since be done here in California, where
fringe lunatics abound.

w.stacy, o.d.

Dick Adams wrote:
- quote -

You positively make Otis appear logical.
- quote -

called a forced choice, which is designed to determine the threshold of
descrimination with remarkable accuracy. If THAT fails, then there is
the trusty autorefractor.
- quote -

You're speaking of MacDonald's, right?
- quote -

Well, while you are on the subject, I cannot prove that you and Otis
exist outside of keystrokes on this screen, either.

- quote -

dropping out of the slot.

DrG